wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

I have been contacted by a concerned resident regarding the ongoing dangerous situation at Simeon Street Recreation ground in Ryde. In the south-western corner there are skate ramps directly adjacent to the perimeter boundary of the park. At this point there is a hedge with a large gap in it, on the other side of which is a very steep bare earth slope leading down to the Monktonmead brook.

The resident who contacted me had seen two young children standing looking down this slope when one of them tried to shove the other down the slope. He later went to the fixmystreet.com website to report the obvious danger to the council and discovered that it had already been reported on the site back in May of this year, yet nothing has been done.

If you aren't aware of the fixmystreet website it is a great idea, just put the post-code in and navigate on the map to where you wish to report a problem to the council. Click on the exact spot, give brief details and the website will email it to the council for you and also archive it on the website. But in this instance nothing appears to have been done about this very serious hazard.

On the 14 May this report was sent to the Isle of Wight council:

"There is a clear path between the side of the skate park and Monkton Mead Brook - I am unsure as to whether there was a fence blocking this before or whether it was a sturdy hedge. This represents a serious danger to children. Please fix ASAP, thank you."

According to the site this was forwarded to the council 4 minutes later.

Yet today, 13 November, I have taken the following pictures to illustrate the dangerous situation.

As you can see from pictures A & B there are three red metal fence posts remaining but the fence they supported is completely missing and according to the report on the website this situation has existed for six months.

From Picture C it is difficult to see the perspective of the drop but picture D is taken from the road bridge on Rink Road and you can clearly see the steep fall down to the stream. Worse still at the bottom there is a short brick wall. A child falling down could hit their head on the wall and fall unconscious into the water, with disastrous consequencies.

According to the isle of Wight council website

"The Recreation, Leisure and Public Spaces Department are responsible for Playgrounds, Parks, Amenity Land Hire and Beaches & Esplanades here on the beautiful Isle of Wight. Our dedicated team take great pride in ensuring that the quality of many of the Islands natural amenities are maintained to the highest standards so both local residents and visitors alike can enjoy sites that are entrusted to our care"

Appley park is currently in the process of being "remodelled" in that the pitch and putt course is being removed and the park is being reinstated to a public path. This will come as a great relief to the many of us that have had to dodge golf balls hitting us and the residents of Medina Avenue who haven't felt safe in their own gardens.

Whilst I was taking these pictures, on this very gloomy morning, a couple of people passed and asked me if i knew what was going on with the heavy machinery. Having read the notices I told them that the golf course was being removed which resulted in the same response I had, how much is this costing us? Given they we are in the worst economic climate in living memory and the concil have been slashing services how can we afford works taking 4 to 6 weeks, according to the notices, and how can removing 8 greens possibly take so long.

However, one person stated that they had heard rumours of the intention to build houses here in the longer term. Another person said the same to me later this morning and also said that he had been told by surveyor working near Quar Abbey that there were plans to build more houses in the fields there. This in addition to the massive proposed development at Pennyfeathers (between Smallbrook lane and Tesco)

I am left wondering where all the people who will be living in all these new houses are going to work, and where their children are going to go to school.

UPDATE 31 October 2011

A concerned resident has been in contact with me who has manged to ascertain from the council that the remodelling of Appley park is costing in the region of £9,000 ( which as far as I remember is roughly the same amount that the council spent installing an irrigation system to water the greens, without consulting us before hand) and this work is considered necessary to return the greens at Appley park (which the council also installed) back to  'what must have been the original historic landscape designed by Humphry Repton in 1798'.

From this statement I can only assume that the council don't actually know what the original landscape was like in the park. Perhaps it would have been helpful if they had taken some photos before they carved the historic park up to make it into the golf course they are now taking away.

And as to the rumours, that have grown widespread, of the council intending to build houses here in the longer term? Well according to the council officer concerned as far as he is aware there are no plans to use the land for building houses. Which is hardly what I would describe as a definitive statement.

Therefore I have taken the trouble of producing this photoshop impression of what the park could eventually look like, just in case there do happen to be plans that he is unaware of.

Humphry Repton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humphry Repton (21 April 1752 – 24 March 1818) was the last great English landscape designer of the eighteenth century, often regarded as the successor to Capability Brown; he also sowed the seeds of the more intricate and eclectic styles of the 19th century. His first name is often incorrectly rendered "Humphrey".....con't

Whilst walking the dog this morning I was heading up Ampthill Road in Ryde heading towards Appley Park. At the top of the road I turned right onto the Public Footpath which runs between Ampthill Road and the top corner of Appley Park, and was confronted with the dog bin precariously balanced in an upright position as the base of its concrete post had been smashed, assumably by a vehicle driving into it, but it was still attached the the ground by its re-enforcing steel rods.

This heavy post and bin must have been finely balanced in this position by someone as it took no effort at all for me to lay it against the fence, as in the picture. Had a child of come along and touched it it could easily have collapsed on them. One of the plastic bollards stopping cars from entering the footpath has in the last few days been replaced as both of them were at acute angles, having been repeatedly driven into.

On continuing my walk along the Appley Park perimeter path I came down the steep hill to the Parks eastern corner, where it intersects with Public Footpath R90 running between the lifeboat station and Puckpool. There is a gate here which is supposed to block access of vehicles attempting to drive along the sea front. As usual it had been abandoned unlocked and was wide open, but its heavy metal retaining post which is removable and inserts into a metal housing had been almost flattened to the ground by a vehicle driving into it at what must have been considerable speed to cause such damage. And the bottom of this post has literally been bent to this angle by the impact as the part below ground is still upright..

The insert shows a close up of the top of the metal post which clearly shows traces of blue and white paint, the colour of the councils vehicles livery perhaps?

How seriously are the council taking public safety on Public Footpaths on the Island? And if someone was unable to see a metal post in front of them should they even be driving? Let alone on Public Footpaths. The gates along this path have been routinely left open for months despite it being reported.

I have sent a report of this incident to the council via the fixmystreet.com website http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/193322 as the council do not answer my emails. The fixmystreet.com website can be used by anyone to report anything to councils as the website forward the reports to councils for you and displays them on their website.

As we have the Isle of Wight Walking Festival coming up again soon I feel compelled to warn unsuspecting walkers of the dangerous situation that exists on a small, but unavoidable, section of the Nunwell Trail where it runs along Smallbrook Lane in Ryde.

The Nunwell Trail runs between Sandown and Ryde and is widely promoted as "easy walking", however, although it may not be physically demanding this short section of the Trail is very dangerous as it runs along the narrow Smallbrook lane which has no pavements and sections of it also have no verge whatsoever due to the hedgerows.

Anybody who lives in Ryde will be well aware of the speed that people drive along this section of the lane and as I have nearly been killed here myself on two occasions I stopped using this route to access the footpaths beyond Smallbrook Stadium several years ago.

If you are considering walking the Nunwell Trail please be very vigilant here especially if you are considering taking children or dogs with you, as you will present a wider target.  On leaving the footpath at picture (A) you are immediately confronted with no safe way to avoid the oncoming traffic, until you reach the point shown in picture (D).

Although you are, of course, fully entitled to walk along the carriageway towards the oncoming traffic they will be coming at you at considerable speed and passing very close to you, please bear in mind that if you are hit it will be of very little consolation that were fully within your rights.

There is a verge running from here alongside the Rosemary Lane vineyard setion, photo (E), so please use it.

However, from photo (F) until the far side of the railway bridge, photo (I), after which you thankfully leave the lane, you are once again running the gauntlet with speeding cars coming straight at you after they have negotiated the narrow bridge. Beware as they don't slow down and wont be aware that you are there until almost upon you.

Following a Freedom Of Information Act request by Twister the councils reply has thrown considerable doubt on the status of the upper sea-wall paths at Appley beach and Puckpool.

The upper and lower sea-wall paths run from the Inshore rescue eastwards to the boundary of Appley Park and Harcourt Sands where the paths converge into a single path until the Dell Cafe.

From the Dell Cafe eastwards the path once again splits into the upper and lower sea-wall paths, ending at the Boat House pub (The former Battery pub)

In their reply the council have stated:

"The upper sea wall has no official designation in terms of highway law

and, therefore, cyclists are not committing an offence"

However according to the Definitive map, which the council have to produce by law, the path is clearly indicated as footpath #90 running uniterupted along the whole stretch between Ryde Inshore Rescue and the Boat house pub.

This brings into question the status of the centre section where the two paths combine to one.

The council further state:

"Cycling is only prohibited on the lower sea wall as it is designated a footpath

and failure to comply is a civil trespass matter"

Yet the Definitive Map shows the path running uninterrupted from the Inshore Rescue to the Boat House pub. Although it does appear to be running along the lower sea-wall at either end, it must, however, also run along this combined middle section. Consequently by the councils definition it appears that cyclists using this combined section, from the boundary between Appley Park and Harcourt Sands until the Dell Cafe, are committing a civil trespass.

Regardless as anyone who regularly uses this area will know cyclists constantly use the lower sea-wall paths, especially the Puckpool end.

The council also state:

"There is positive signage in place directing cyclists through Puckpool Park as this

is a suitable alternative and is used in an effort to avoid conflict. The

area may benefit from some additional signage advising cyclists to

dismount on the upper sea wall although this would not facilitate any

enforcement measures"

 So although the council have a notice displayed at the Dell Cafe which states "Cycling is prohibited along promenade and footpath" they appear to be stating that cycling is not in actual fact prohibited along the upper sea-wall, assuming they define the upper sea-wall as the promenade.

 promenade [ˌprɒməˈnɑːd] n : Chiefly Brit a public walk, esp at a seaside resort

 If the path running along the upper sea-wall is a public path and the council feel that cyclists should not use it, as this could lead to conflict, why have they, as the local authority, never taken action to prohibit cycling here? At least then the sign would not be misleading:

pro·hib·it  (pr-hbt) tr.v. pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its : To forbid by authority

"There are no speed limits imposed on cyclists at this

location and, therefore, enforcement is not applicable...

."

"Cycling is only prohibited on the lower sea wall as it is designated a footpath

and failure to comply is a civil trespass matter"

Following seeing some people removing ragwort from fields in Ryde between:

• Nicholson Road and Smallbrook Lane, North and South
• Great Preston Road and the railway line, East and West

We have learnt that the IW council are renting the land out and it is  being fenced in in order that New Forest ponies can be kept there.

This has been a popular recreation area with local people for many years, and is one of the few remaining dog exercising areas close to Ryde.

Obviously local people arent going to be too happy about it but the council consider that they are the landowner and although they may be permitted to lease the land we are getting reports that this area is not being professionally fenced in, rather makeshift barbed wire barrier is being installed including adjacent to Public footpath R 55, specifically the section which runs from the railway crossing in the direction of Nicholson Road and Great Preston Road.

Barbed wire causing a nuisance to the highway (which includes Public footpaths) is covered by the Highways Act 1980 section 164

Section 164. Power to require removal of barbed wire

(1) Where on land adjoining a highway there is a fence made with barbed wire, or having barbed wire in or on it, and the wire is a nuisance to the highway, a competent authority may by notice served on the occupier of the land require him to abate the nuisance within such time, not being less than one month nor more than six months from the date of service of the notice, as may be specified in it.

For the purposes of this section -

(a) the competent authorities, in relation to any highway, are the Highway Authority and also (where they are not the Highway Authority) the local authority for the area in which the highway is situated;

(b) 'barbed wire' means wire with spikes or jagged projections, and barbed wire is to be deemed to be a nuisance to a highway if it is likely to be injurious to persons or animals lawfully using the highway.

(2) If at the expiration of the time specified in the notice the occupier has failed to comply with the notice, a magistrates' court, if satisfied on complaint made by the authority that the wire is a nuisance to the highway, may order the occupier to abate the nuisance and, if he fails to comply with the order within a reasonable time, the authority may do whatever may be necessary in execution of the order. and recover from him the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing.

(3) If the local authority who are a competent authority in relation to the highway concerned are the occupiers of the land in question proceedings under this section may be taken against them by any ratepayer within the area of that local authority and the foregoing provisions apply accordingly in relation to him and to the authority as they apply in relation to an authority and to an occupier of land.

However bear in mind that the council haven't addressed the dangerous fence adjacent to Public Footpath R103, a short distance from this location, which has been in this condition for two years and despite a member of this website receiving compensation from them after his dog was badly injured.

Please remember that if you or your dog sustain injury due to barbed wire, even if you are trespassing, you may have a claim against both the landowner and whoever is leasing the land.

No doubt there are plenty of personal injury solicitors out there who I'm sure would be more than willing to consider your case on a no win no fee basis.

Please pass on your complaints/concerns to the council, and feel free to copy them to this website as we will be compiling a dossier of evidence which will be available to anyone who sustains injury.

customer.services@iow.gov.uk

County Hall

High Street

Newport

Isle of Wight

PO30 1UD

UPDATE - 3 August 2010

Here are some pictures of the state of play so far. The map above shows the area which has been fully fenced in so far as a darker shade of orange. We are unsure whether the triangular field to the right, which  the houses along the Great Preston Road back onto, has been fenced off as yet. ( UPDATE this triangular field has now also been fenced) But the other fields had open access today apart from the barbed wire installed at the ponts shown in the photos,

This is looking towards the Post Office sorting depot in Nicholson Road from the first field having crossed the railway line show at point "A" on the map above. We assume this was an arson attack and we do not know if it is connected to the fencing of this land, however from the people I spoke to there is a great deal of unrest and resentment over the way this has been handled, and the pathetic and dangerous attempts at fencing.

This is taken a bit further on along Footpath R 55 Showing the makeshift stringing of barbed wire at point "B" in the map above. Note the trailing barbed wire on the ground adjacent to this Public Right Of Way. When horses are coming the cowboys are never far behind.

I spoke to someone who said when he saw them placing this barbed wire here he had pointed out to them that it was dangerous, he ended up being told to F**K off.

I injured my leg on the barbed wire shown shortly before taking this photo (see below)

This was taken at point "C" in the map above it shows the corner of the field where it emerges onto Public Footpath R54 which runs alongside the railway line. As you can see once again we have makeshift Barbed Wire loosely slung across. Remember this is IW council owned land and assumably they have terms in the lease that fencing must be of a professional standard, especially adjacent to a PROW.

My leg after walking into a loose strand of barbed wire on public footpath R 55  shortly before taking the photo two above this one.  After cutting my leg I had moved the strand of barbed wire back off the footpath prior to taking the photo.

UPDATE - 4 August 2010

Further photos which have been emailed to us this morning.

This shows a section of fencing that has been installed at point "D" on the map above. The person who sent it to us informs us thet he was walking his dog in the field on the other side of this fence, where there were no notices saying he couldnt do so and the entrance where he came in was unfenced. In fact the situation was unchanged to that of  recent years when access hasnt  been barred. Whilst walking along  his dog ran under this fence and he had to follow in order to retrieve his dog which is when he took the two photos he sent us. As you can see this is hardly stock proof fencing.

This photo was taken at point "E" on the map above. This clearly illustrates how the fencing on this council owned land is being bodged. There are old pallets included here in this "budget" approach and behind this they have stacked up cut branches of blackthorn and brambles. Very professional!

Incidentally blackthorn has vicious thorns which are well known for causing wounds which turn septic. I consider whoever is placing cut branches of blackthorn are doing so in a spiteful act likely to cause nasty injuries.

This is also being done at entrances to these fields alongside footpath R 54 which runs parallel to the railway line.

OK we now have the 1st June 2010 water quality test results for Shanklin,  are we are talking swimming in sewage?

The results taken from the Environment Agency Website are as follows:

Total coliforms (colonies / 100ml) 1st June Result: 15000 Fifteen Thousand!  Whereas the higher, recommended guideline standards is no more than 500 per 100ml.  And the legal minimum mandatory standards permit a maximum of 10,000 per 100ml

Faecal coliforms (colonies / 100ml) 12600, Twelve Thousand Six Hundred! The higher recommended guideline standards is no more than 100 per 100ml.  And the legal minimum mandatory standards permits no more that 2,000 per 100ml

Faecal streptococci (colonies / 100ml) 800 whereas the higher, recommended guideline standards is no more than 100 per 100ml

Now Thats What We Call Failing - Way To Go Shanklin

So is it safe to swim?

Im afraid you will have to ask the council yourselves on that one as I am "Blacklisted"

The Information on the UK Blue Flag website states:

"The guideline, or recommended, standards consider faecal coliform, total coliform and faecal streptococci: Total coliform no more than: 500 per 100 ml

Faecal coliform no more than: 100 per 100 ml

Faecal streptococci no more than: 100 per 100 ml"

Which is the same as given above. It goes on to state:

"To achieve this overall result for a season 80% of all the samples (16 out of 20) must be equal to, or better than, the above standards for total and faecal coliform and 90% (18 out of 20) must be equal to, or better than, the above standard for faecal streptococci. The water must also comply with the legal minimum standard. It is this guideline standard that is required for a Blue Flag at a resort beach."

So it appears there is quite a leaway for the water failing the test including a 20% failure rate! But no mention of extreme cases of failing the tests. However the description given for the red smiley face (for failing the test)  states that:

"The test(s) failed the legal minimum standards and it is not recommended for swimming"

Quite how a Blue Flag Award beach cannot be recommended for swimming yet remain an Award beach is beyond me, and whether the Award has to be withdrawn until such time as the water quality returns to being suitable for swimming is another mystery that may well be buried in the 39 pages of the Award criteria. Or somewhere in the UK additions to that.

But it is far from clear to this simple country boy at least.

One things for sure though these results not becoming available on the Internet until over a week after they are taken is hardly of any use to the people who were swimming in the sea at Shanklin on the 1st June. But at least Shanklin being a Blue Flag beach ensured that my dog wouldnt have been in the sea there, as I certainly wouldnt have wanted him taking that risk given the pollution.

The Blue flag Award winning beach at Shanklin has become the first of the season to fail the water quality test due to pollution. (Good news for dogs as the people who award Blue Flags for the UK insist on dog bans, but the rest of the worlds Blue Flag beaches dont) So Fair Play To Shanklin

 The Environment agency tests the water at 20 weekly intervals throughout the season. They display the results on their website (although in our experience the result are not updated often, as of today 09 June the page for Shanklin is showing as the latest result the test from 17 May, as the page was last updated on the 20 May) The council also supply test results on their website (also out of date with the most recent result on 09 June being for the 01 June result) but the council give no details whatsoever as they only display results as smiley faces!

This does not display any urgency for publishing the results regardless of the great significance that water quality has, according to the information we are constantly having drummed into us. What relevance do these results have, to a person wanting to visit a beach and wishing to check on the water quality, if the results are nearly a month out of date?

The results table on the IW councils website shows Springvale and East Cowes as having "no results" at all this year. This struck us as very suspicious but as I am unable to email the council due to them "Blacklisting" me as a result I was unable to supply an answer to the people who consult this website, which is supplying a free service to the Island community and its visitors, funded entirely by me. I have now managed to establish through other sources that Springvale and East Cowes beaches are now in the category of  "Quality Coast Award  Non Bathing Beaches" consequently the water is no longer tested and the council are not supposed to promote them for swimming (Although Springvale is recommended for swimming on the IW councils website) Also there is no requirement for dogs to be banned, even though the council have just banned dogs entirely from Springvale beach.

It would appear that the council have not bothered to updated their website preferring to just display lines of "No Results" rather than remove irrelevant entries where the water is no longer tested from a table listing water testing results. Whether they actually intend to update the table on the website, and also the recommendations for visitors to swim on Non Bathing beaches, at any point before the end of the season we are unfortunately unable to ask them, once again due to me being "Blacklisted".

But the water test criteria appears to be very flexible, even for the so called "benchmark" Blue Flag award beaches.

As only 80% (16 out of the 20 taken in the season) of the samples have to pass the test for 500 or less total and faecal coliform per 100ml of water. Apart from one in five of the tests being allowed to Fail (contain more sewage than the pass results have) they can also pass regardless of if they have 1 per 100ml or 500 per 100ml which is five hundred times the amount.

The wighdogs website will continue to monitor the test test results throughout the season and we will update the Island Water Quality page with the patchy results as and when they become available.

It seems the Ryde South electoral ward is jinxed when it comes to their representation on the IW council.

For a long time we were stuck with Cllr Chapman who was seldom actually on the Island, he was a rare sight at council meetings and he refused to answer emails. We finally got shot of him last year when Cllr Whittaker was voted in to replace him. Cllr Whittaker was ful of promises over how things were going to change under him and they certainly did as within a year he had been arrested for assaulting the police during which he spat blood in an officers face whilst laughing and shouting "I have aids". Still he was an improvement on Chapman.

This triggered another election for the poor souls of Ryde to endure and the County Hall Tory Battle machine went into overdrive as this was the first test of the regime since they had introduced their swathing cuts to the services of the vulnerable and needy of Island society.

 Now I have a large poster in my front door at all times and along with the instructions forbidding Religious fanatics, salesmen etc it clearly states "NO POLITICIANS" and "NO CANVASSERS" even the Jehovah's witness' have given up but it was no defense against the Tory press gang and I gave up answering my door in the end. But fortunately for me I am ex directory as others actually had them phoning to persuade them to vote for their man Gary Taylor.

 Having received numerous glossy leaflets and other assorted Tory party propaganda through my door I happened to finally glance at one whilst chomping through my obligatory peanut butter on toast and Mr Taylor certainly was full of promises of how life would improve under his leadership. "Keeping Council tax Down, Keeping Our Streets Tidy, Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour etc. etc." Along with numerous quotes from Mr Taylor who had spoken to County hall and gained answers to his questions that the rest of us could only dream of. Odd really as he hadn't even been elected yet but he was already one of the boys.

Gary was certainly going to be our man even though he doesn't actually live in the ward as among his many atributes it appears he is street wise! So as he was asking us to contact him and claimed "No issue is too big or small for me. I pledge to work hard on behalf of the residents of Ryde South and work with whoever i need to" I was impressed and I though to myself - What a Man, so I obliged and emailed him with my concerns over my being "Blacklisted" by the IW council following wightdogs.com spearheading the fight against the intended beach ban extensions.

 Given Mr Taylors many brave promises of a brighter inclusive future I was surprised when I received a rather generic reply:

Thank you for your email. I understand and sympathise with your issue and will certainly take this up if elected.

Yours

GaryTaylor

I must admit to being somewhat disgruntled and although I knew Gary was a very busy and important man, and had little time to deal with a simple country boy like me, I emailed him again to seek reassurance:

"Is that it Gary, or is this just a generic reply?"

Gery responded with:

"Not at all - I am most concerned to learn that you have been blocked from emailing the council and will take the issue up if I am elected. I can well understand your irritation with this issue."

 At last a true man eager to serve and  to assist me in my struggle for justice. I slept soundly that night content that our new leader would not only champion my cause but the old neighbourhood would be paved with gold.

Sure enough Gary was voted in successfully and the Tories strutted about boasting loudly of the 25% turnout, as with 274 votes Gary had secured nearly 10% of the total of possible voters who numbered 2946. A Famous Victory Indeed!

 Delighted that the saviour had secured his place in history I waited in anticipation for Gary to contact me with the good news of pending salvation, but I knew the celebrations and congratulations were the order of the day so I waited patiently for the great man to grant me an audience to secure our battle plans.

Days passed by and became a week and still no word from our Hero, so I grasped the opportunity to email the Mesiah over his great concerns regarding me being "Blacklisted", but his reply stated:

 "I have asked about your email status at County Hall, and have been told that your complaints are vexatious, and this is why they will no longer allow your emails, even to me"

 Confused at how the Saviour could have ever assumed that the council were "Blacklisting" people without at least considering them to be vexatious I took it upon myself to once again email Gary:

"I am afraid I am not willing to accept that "they" wont allow you as an elected representative to decide for yourself whether you wish to receive emails from an individual you represent.

Are you willing to accept that my complaints are vexatious without seeing the evidence?..."

 A very reasonable request I thought, that Gary should decide for himself whether or not he wished to receive my emails to him in his official capacity as my elected representative especially given that Gary had expressed that he was most concerned over the practice prior to the election. But in his reply Gary stated:

"I am sure you are aware that it is not possible for me to change this decision"

 So nine days after sweeping to power, and after writing two sentences regarding my "Blacklisting" Gary had given up the fight, and rolled over to show his underbelly, but to whom he had actually submitted I was unsure. He had attempted to meet with me in person to discuss my concerns off the record, the documented record that is. This not being of any use, as I would have no record of what was said, I wrote formally to Gary yesterday to request answers as to whether he had given the council permission to intercept my emails to him and to be informed of who the mysterious "they" were who he claimed would not allow my emails, including to him. I also informed Gary that I believed these measures have been implemented solely to humiliate me, as despite my emails being immediately bounced back to me with a message stating they had been discarded I had documentary evidence that this was not true as i had received a reply to one of them even though it had been allegedly discarded. I explained to Gary that by participating in this I didn't consider he was treating me with respect.

I was somewhat surprised that a professional like Gary should hastily compose a response to a formal request such as this but within eight hours I received his reply informing me that the Chief Executive of the council and the Director of Corporate Services, both unelected employees of the council, had informed him, my democratically elected representative, that my emails are blocked. End of story, and as Gary never answered my other points but has informed me:

 "I now need to balance my time answering your emails with the needs of other constituents in the ward"

 I consider I have been dismissed like a naughty schoolboy. So barely a week after the much heralded brave new world was inaugurated its off to the Ethical Standards Committee for me....Roll on the next election.

7th June 2010 11:00

Now I, in common with the rest of the Ryde South ward, have become rather disillusioned with the conduct of our representative over the years. And we have understandably also become ever so slightly cynical about the motives of our councillors. Gary has come onto the scene in changing times with references by central government to "ridiculous salaries" of council employees ( You will recall the reason given as to  why I cant email Gary at his official IWC email address was that two council employees told him he wasn't allowed to receive them, those two being the Chief Executive Beynon and his home boy the Director of Corporate Services. The CE is on £160,000 a year and his sidekick? I don't know but I would hazard a guess we are talking close on a Quarter of a million quid per year for the pair of them. Two members of staff employed by the council tax payer to serve telling an elected representative he cannot receive official communication from a person he was elected by, and Cllr Taylor is willing to accept that. If I was in the same poition I would refuse as I am a man of principle, and what would they have done sack me? They would be the employees not me) and the shame inflected by the expenses scandals. Or rather the shame inflicted by being caught at the expenses scandals. I think our Gary has missed the gravy train and might just have to do something other than say "yes" occasionally when prompted to do so.

Anyway you will recall that when Gary dismissed me for being naughty he stated:

"I now need to balance my time answering your emails with the needs of other constituents in the ward"

He was referring, I assume, to the ongoing complaints I had with the IW council which I had forwarded to him on his success of being elected as he had urged the electorate to contact him as:

 "No issue is too big or small for me. I pledge to work hard on behalf of the residents of Ryde South and work with whoever I need to"

So I sent him details of my concerns regarding the conduct of the dog warden and his motives for issuing myself with a Fixed Penalty Notice (this had been ongoing for nearly a year due to the IW council refusing to supply information requested  under the FOI Act, plenty more on this later) I also raised my concerns over the legally of the document produced for the Cabinet setting out the options for the Dog Control Orders amendments. ( I have had no answers whatsoever from either Cllr Pugh, Cllr Abraham or Simon Dennis whose name was the contact on the document. It was after I raised this matter, and had no response whatsoever, that on reiterating the fact that I required answers I discovered I had been "Blacklisted". Plenty more to come on this later) Finally I raised the dangerous condition of the fence alongside Public Footpath R103 which has been in an appalling condition for six years, and the council stated over a year ago something would be done after a dog belonging to a member of this website was badly injured. But of course nothing was ever done. This including video evidence is covered in the previous entry to this blog.

All these should be of concern to Gary as my representative and don't forget that I have been without representation due to Gassers predecessors little episode. Now then Whittaker obviously wasn't too keen on the old bill but I was under the impression that the usual course of action in such circumstances would be to hurl objects at them from a distance, whilst wearing a hood, baseball cap and the optional scarf wrapped around the face. Rather than standing at your own front door spitting bloody vomit in their faces and shouting "Ha Ha Ha Ive got aids". But then again what do I know? As I'm not even a councillor.

But the fence issue was, and still is, posing a danger to Garys flock and although Gary doesn't actually live in the area he represents, this fence does I believe does fall within the boundary. (Impossible to tell on the ward map on the councils website, now theres a surprise) Regardless Garys leaflets inform us "Gary would regularly walk the streets of Ryde South to identify any problems with untidy streets, However he would be grateful if you could bring any issues to his attention so he can get then dealt with quickly" So it appears Gary can walk. even though he doesn't have the appearence of one that does so regularly, (perhaps he could get a dog, oh on second thoughts not such a good idea what with the IWC reputation regarding good boys and girls) but I suppose he could drive over from the West Hill Road and then do his patrol. And although Footpath R103 isn't technically a Street it is however a highway and this is an area used extensively by the very people Gary claims he represents. Yet the only comment Gary has offered is:

"Thank you for your email. I have noted the content"

Very generic Gary, you are a fast learner, but so much for your statement:  "As your councillor...I would be the champion for young people"  As this area has become somewhat of a gathering point for young people of your ward, as such places were when I was their age because you have no where to go, you have little money and anything is better than going home. But you appear to have avoided giving any opinion as to whether or not you consider it to be safe? One things for sure it is a long time since it has served the only purpose for which it was erected - To bar passage

Around about this time of year I start taking my dog down to the Rosemary lane area in Ryde as by now the mud has all but dried up. Such was the case this morning and as I emerged from the narrow public footpath at the end of Quarry Road I was confronted with rubbish strewn all over the ground and the fence smashed to pieces.

The splint chestnut paling a mass of sharp splintered fragments pointing in every which direction. On commenting to a lady who was present I was informed that the kids today don't have any respect for anything.

But this isn't the full picture as at this very time last year I was contacted by a member of the wightdogs,com website as his dog had received a very nasty injury from this very fence resulting in a hefty vets bill(as reported in the forums)

I even went to the lengths of uploading it to YouTube in an attempt to get some action out of the council as at the time all my emails were being intercepted as I was only permitted one point of contact with the council.

Eventually though we did get an answer of sorts from the council to our joint complaints, and they stated that:

"Arrangements will be made to remove the damaged fencing in due course, but as there is no immediate risk this will not be considered to be a priority"

So one year on and not a lot changes, other than that I am now "Blacklisted" by the council, although no sign of any action whatsoever in this area that they affectionately refer to as the "town green".

Town green, that's a laugh, and these youngsters have grown another year older seeing that the council couldn't care less about the appearance or safety aspects of the area they live in, yet those same youngsters are supposed to be showing respect? Not only in this neglected area where the tourist seldom venture but in the areas where the council do squander their parents hard earned council tax.

And all the while this council are blissfully unaware of why they have problems with anti-social behaviour.

Here we have two YouTube videos

One showing the fence in May 2009

The other in June 2010

"Arrangements will be made to remove the damaged fencing in due course, but as there is no immediate risk this will not be considered to be a priority"

Complete Neglect and A Lack of Respect

The wightdogs website would like to thank the isleofwightinsider for all his assistance in supplying and uploading video footage, often at very short notice as with this video clip which was uploded this afternoon following me emailing him this morning asking if he could video the fence. And also for his continued patience and advise on image editing software due to him being a Photoshop Ninja.

  isleofwightinsider

On the 24th November the webmaster wrote to the council regarding the fence in the photos.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to bring to your attention the fence in the attached jpegs which has been erected alongside the footpath running between Ampthill road Ryde, and Appley park. This fence has recently been constructed inside the existing chain-link fence which has been in place for many years along the boundary of St Cecilias abbey.

It runs alongside a highway, it exceeds two metres in hight and is out of keeping with the area, also it is making this highway oppressive and closed in for both women and vulnerable persons to use.

Would you please inform me whether this fence required planning permission and whether this has been granted

--

Yours Sincerely

As this email went unacknowledged and was totally ignored after 20 working days he requested a review of the councils decision to not supply the information he had requested.

He has now finally  received a reply, of sorts, from the council stating that they have inspected the fence in question and that no action will be taken as "it has been decided that it would not be expedient to pursue enforcement action in line with National Policy Guidance PPG18"

(Planning Policy Guidance: Enforcing Planning Control PPG18 can be found here)

To date we have not been informed whether the fence required planning permission and if so whether this was applied for and whether it was granted, consequently we have now requested this information for the third time along with details of requesting a review/appeal of their decision as, in addition, we have not been informed of this either.

We can see no benefit in this fence being erected as there is already a chain link fence barring access. This footpath is unlit it has an unfenced wooded area running adjacent to it, on the opposite side to the fence, which leaves the area off putting to the many female users and their young children who frequent the footpath to access the nearby school, and now added to this they are further discouraged by having a fence exceeding two metre high closing in the established open character of this boundary with the Saint Cecilias Abbey, which I would imagine must also be a listed building.

Quite why the Abbey consider this fence necessary is a mystery but taking into consideration the copius use of barbed wire they employ to keep people out, not to mention the broken glass on top of their walls, I am left questioning their attitude towards ordinary people, after all are we not all their gods creations? And given the tarnished reputation of the Roman Catholic church I would have thought that openness and good will would have been the new order, but then again....

Sunday 24th January...

Further photos of the broken glass which is deemed necessary (and lawful?) by the Abbey and more recently erected fencing exceeding 2 metres in height which is bordering the approach road to Appley car park.

These images have also been forwarded to the council along with a request as to whether St Cecilias Abbey and its grounds are of listed status and/or a conservation area. And once again whether this fence required planning permission and if so whether this was applied for and whether it was granted.

This public consultation started out with the council failing to announce it on their website, and it is finishing with them failing to inform us where to hand the petition opposing the proposal in to.

We emailed them on Sunday:

from mail@wightdogs.com

to community.support@iow.gov.uk

Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:12 PM

subject DCO Consultation Petition...URGENT

I am collecting signatures on a petition for the public consultation regarding the proposals for the changes to the Dog Control Orders, which ends on the 18th December.

Could you please inform me at your earliest convenience whereabouts in Ryde I will be able to hand the petition in prior to the closing date.

Last time following a similar consultation it was arranged for the petition to be handed in at the Ryde Help Centre.

--

Yours Sincerely

Today is Thursday and having heard nothing we emailed them again:

from mail@wightdogs.com

to customer.services@iow.gov.uk,

"Abraham, Barry" <barry.abraham@iow.gov.uk>

date Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM

subject Fwd: DCO Consultation Petition...URGENT

Would you please have the professionalism to respond to thisrequest, as you are supposedly running a public consultation and thisis a matter of urgency.

--

Yours Sincerely

Strangely enough the last time we had a public consultation on the councils proposals for their Dog Control Orders (October 2007) they continually ignored our requests to be informed of where to hand that petition in, until finally we were forced to contact Andrew Turner to intervene on our behalf as there was only three days to the deadline.

Doesn't it give you a warm feeling to know that the people we are employing to serve us have such respect for us?

Dateline Friday 23rd October 2009 - after months of preparation the Isle of Wight council finally publish their Proposals for the public consultation on their changes to the Dog Control Orders

Upon returning home clutching my copy of the County Press I quickly dry my dog after his early morning walk on the beach, that done I eagerly flick through the pages until I find the Official notices and there it was -

NOTICE OF CONSULTATION FOR THE DOG EXCLUSION (ISLE OF WIGHT) ORDER 2010

But wait there is no desription of where the exclusions will apply only a reference to examing the maps at County Hall, all libraries and help centres and online at http://www.iwight.com/dogorders . So eagerly I turn on the pc, give my password, open the browser and type the address.......and..... nothing whatsover about a consultation, just the orders that came into force on 2 May 2008:

New Dog Control Orders

Latest News:

The Isle of Wight Council has passed new Dog Control Orders under section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to replace existing legislation. The new Dog Orders came into force on 2 May 2008.

No new maps here or any mention of a Public Consultation taking place at all.

So I click on Dog Exclusion Order, after all it did say CONSULTATION FOR THE DOG EXCLUSION

But again nothing other the last orders from 2008 again

Dog Exclusion Order

The Isle of Wight Council hereby makes the following Order:

1. This Order comes into force on May 2 2008

2. This Order applies to the land specified in Schedule 1 below.

I then clicked on the link to the maps showing the excluded beaches but once again these were showing the current beach bans not the proposed new ones.

So next I went to the councils website home page and click on the Consultations link:

and once again no mention of this consultation even existing:

Latest Consultations

The Big Care Questionnaire

TheGovernment's new Green Paper "Shaping the Future of Care Together" setsout a vision for a National Care Service for all adults in England. Weare encouraging all Island residents to take have their say and jointhe Big Care Debate to help shape the future of care and support. Click here to complete the questionnaire.

Councillors? allowances ? have your say!

TheCouncil has asked an independent panel to review the allowances that itcurrently pays to elected members of the Isle of Wight Council. ThePanel welcomes the views of the public about what allowances elected members should receive.

The Panel comprises three completely independent people who were chosen following public advertisement. They will be reporting their recommendations to the Council in January 2010. The current allowance scheme can be found at page 221 of the Constitution which can be seen by clicking here and then click on Members Allowance Scheme on the index page to view.

If you have any views about councillors? allowances that you would like to share with the Panel please send them, together with your reasons, to marian.jones@iow.gov.uk by 31 October.

Gambling Act Policy Consultation1.

The purpose of this consultation exercise is to invite your views by 9 November 2009, on the Draft Statement of Licensing Policy 2010?2013 which has been prepared in accordance with Section 349 of the Gambling Act 2005.

2. Please send responses to the Licensing Team quoting reference 020103/DCB in all correspondence in one of the following ways:

a. In writing to Licensing Team, Jubilee Stores, The Quay, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 2EH.b. By fax to (01983) 823158c. By e-mail to: licensing@iow.gov.uk 3.If you are responding as a representative organisation, please include in your response a summary of the people and organisations which yourepresent.

4. Please note that anonymous representations will not be considered.

5. Enquiries about the contents of this consultation paper should be made to Kevin Winchcombe (Principal Licensing Officer) at the above address

Nothing about the Dog Control Orders

Despite searching the councils website over the last two days I can find no mention of this "Public Consultation" let alone what the councils proposals, that we are supposedly being consulted on, are.

Are we in for another attempt by the council to make us keep dogs on leads?

During the last Proposals for the Dog Control Orders in 2007 the council proposed that dogs must be on a lead "on all promenades abutting an area where there is a dog exclusion zone" This once again comes directly from Encams criteria handbook for awarding a Quality Coast Award.

We know that the council have been applying for the Award even though the beach at Ryde didn't meet the criteria requirement "excluding dogs from at least part of the beach (to include the bathing area)" And now by coincidence they intend to change the existing DCOs to incorporate this. However changing the rules merely because the beaches do not meet the criteria on these points is hardly a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them, which the DEFRA guidance #29 clearly states. And the council wont supply the fines statistics which would be evidence of whether a problem actually exists or not.

But Encams are well aware that this Quality Coast Award has been in place throughout the summer season and that the beach does not meet their criteria, yet they have done nothing about that judging by the flags still flying. So much for the prestigious Award, and so much for Encams checks in the first place.

Now lets have a look at the Quality Coast Award Criteria.

We will consider two categories A and B.

They both state that dogs must be excluded from at least PART of the beach (to include the bathing area)

But A states "Dogs should be kept on leads on the seafront"

Whether Ryde has A or B we were unable to establish from the councils website (and there is hardly any point in asking them given their track record on supplying information relevant to this consultation) but if it has an A we have another instance of them applying without the beach meeting the criteria. However if we have a B there is no requirement for dogs to be on leads, so a B would appear to be a reasonable compromise in order to balance the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs DEFRA guidance #30

But keep your eyes peeled when the proposals are announced as seeing the influence Encams have over them we wouldn't be in the least surprised if this raises its ugly head again.

Quite frankly if the beach is too polluted to get a Blue Flag what's the point in pretending its award winning, especially if the Awards are handed out willy nilly regardless of the criteria, which just makes them meaningless.

Category A - Resort Bathing Beach

• A dog bye-law or control order excluding dogs from at least part of the beach (to include the bathing area) during the bathing season should be in place

• The dog bye-law or control order should be managed and enforced

• Dog bins and appropriate signage should be present

• Dogs should be kept on leads on the seafront
  

Category B - Bathing Beach

• A dog ban is not compulsory for this category. However, where practical,an enforced dog-bye-law or control order excluding dogs from at least part of the beach (to include the bathing area) during the bathing season is recommended. If a dog ban is not in force during the bathing season, a clear dog control policy must be in place before an award can be made

• Dog bins and appropriate signage should be present

Here is KC Dogs views on a requirement to keep dogs on leads

KC Dog would be concerned about plans to introduce an Order that would make it an offence for a person in charge of a dog not to keep it on a lead in parks, sections of parks, open green spaces etc. If your council is thinking about introducing an order to this effect, KC Dog would urge the council to consider the following points:

• That keeping dogs on leads could adversely affect a dog?s health, weight and behaviour if it had been used to running around vigorously. Doing so could be contrary to the principles of the Animal Welfare Act.

• That an order to keep dogs on leads would affect a dog owners? ability to exercise a dog thoroughly i.e. in terms of age, fitness level and time availability.

• If these dog owners have to travel to neighbouring areas to exercise their dogs off the lead, this would have potential negative effects on government targets to improve the environment and reduce congestion as dog walkers would have to drive their cars to other locations to walk their dogs.

Ryde interchange has been put on hold indefinitely and the council are looking for ways to spend £1,500,000

One and a half million pounds?

Do you realise that could fund the Isle of Wight dog warden service for 16 years*.

And during those 16 years, judging by their average performance over the last three years**, they would hand out a grand total of 96 successful Fixed Penalty Notice for dog fouling.

* Combined wage total for our 5 dog wardens £93,585 per annum

**Dogfouling fines Issued 2006-07=2 fines, 2008-09=10 fines (figuresfor2007-08 with-held by IW council) Average 6 fines per year. Now there's value for money!

Figures taken from our Freedom Of Information requests

All year parking Charges at the Esplanade and the Canoe lake, Ryde.

As from the Ist. of November this year we are going to have to pay to park in these areas all year round, this is going to have an adverse effecton the many people who walk their dogs on the beach here.

£1 - £1.90 just to walk your dog in the town where you live!

Photo of notice taped to ticket machine at the Canoe Lake

The council have been struggling with their own Dog Control Orders since they first introduced them.

We had the long running saga of the signs at Appley Ryde, first they said they were correct, then they admitted they were wrong, then we went back to them claiming they were correct again and they started putting more of them up until finally they had to once again admit they were wrong. Then we had their total confusion over Saint Helens.

Tonight I was checking out their beach ban maps of Ryde and the area shown in yellow which represents the beach ban area on the western side of the pier at Ryde bares no relation to the actual beach ban, which is one hundred metres sea-wards from the sea-wall. "The beach from the Eastern edge of St. Thomas Slip Way to Ryde Pier for a distance of 100 meters out from the sea wall"

Quite how they can expect residents let alone visitors to understand the rules if they themselves are baffled by them is beyond us.

We have been requesting information about the Dog Service on the Island in order to supply the 102 members of this website, and the many other unregistered users, ease of access to information in order that they can come to an informed decision of whether the Islands dog Wardens are offering value for money.

We are in a time of recession and inevitably cuts are going to have to be made in the expenditure of the council in the future. Whether vital services should have their budgets reduced in order that we can continue to fund a service that we have already established have only issued a total of 12 successful dog fouling fines in a period of 2 years out of the last 3, we would like the council tax payers of the Island to be able to reach their decision upon using the relevant data.

Yet the council have now in effect blocked us from obtaining any further information, relating to the performance of their dog service, on the grounds of the cost of supplying that information. Also as stated below they appear to be implying that should anybody else request information relating to the dire performance of their dog service, as is their right under the Freedom Of Information Act, they will consider this to be "acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign" which would enable them to not supply the information.

A campaign to obtain information that should be in the public domain? What exactly is wrong with a campaign? I am left wondering what Winston Churchill would have made of the outlawing of a campaign. As without our campaign during the Second World War would this country be the "Free Country" it supposedly is now?

The Isle of Wight councils Information officer:

"Unfortunately, I have estimated that the time it will take to determine if the Council holds the information, including locating, retrieving and extracting the information, to enable us to respond to your request, will exceed the fee limit as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulation 2004. Therefore, the Council is not obliged to provide a response.

For information purposes, the fee limit set down by the Lord Chancelloris £450 and in our case this equates to a maximum of 18 hours of searchand retrieval time. The Fees Regulations state that two or morer equests can be aggregated for the purposes of calculating costs if they are:

•   by one person, or by different persons who appear to the publicauthority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign;
•   for the same or similar information; and
•   the subsequent request is received by the public authority within 60 working days of the previous request.

Accordingly, the Council has considered this latest request in conjunction with your previous requests relating to the Dog Warden service, submitted over the last 3 weeks. The Council has already spen tseveral hours in dealing with these requests, and I must advise that to deal with this latest request would exceed the limit."

All the Freedom Of Information requests by wightdogs, and responses, can be found here

Please copy this and paste it into an email, send it to anyone with a dog and tell them to do the same. www.wightdogs.com

This is a MUST READ for anyone with an animal or for anyone who knows someone with an animal. Pass it along.

 Xylitol Can Kill Dogs - Serious stuff

 Xylitol is found in sugar free puddings and just about anything else that is sugar free.  If you have a dog READ THIS -- then forward it to all those you know who have a dog! If you don't have a dog.

Snopes says it's true:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/xylitol.asp

Warning to all dog owners pass this on to everyone you can.

 Last Friday evening, I arrived home from work, fed Chloe, our 24 Lb. Dachshund, just as I normally do Ten minutes later I walked into the den just in time to see her head inside the pocket of Katie's friend's purse. She had a guilty look on her face so I looked closer and saw a small package of sugar-free gum. It contained xylitol. I remembered that I had recently read that sugar-free gum can be deadly for dogs so I jumped on line and looked to see if xylitol was the ingredient. I found the first website below and it was the one. Next, I called our vet. She said to bring her in immediately.

Unfortunately,it was still rush hour and it took me almost 1/2 hour to get there.Meanwhile, since this was her first case, our vet found another websiteto figure out the treatment. She took Chloe and said they would induceher to vomit, give her a charcoal drink to absorb the toxin (even though they don't think it works) then they would start an iv with dextrose. The xylitol causes dogs to secrete insulin so their blood sugar drops very quickly. The second thing that happens is liver failure. If that happens, even with aggressive treatment, it can be difficult to save them. She told us she would call us.

 Almost two hours later, the vet called and said that contents of her stomach contained 2-3 gumwrappers and that her blood sugar had dropped from 90 to 59 in 30 minutes. She wanted us to take Chloe to another hospital that has a critical care unit operating around the clock We picked her up and took her there. They had us call the ASPCA poison control for a case number, their doctors would direct Chloe's doctor on treatment... They would continue the iv, monitor her blood every other hour and then in 2 days test her liver function. She ended up with a central line in her jugular vein since the one in her leg collapsed, just as our regular vet had feared.Chloe spent almost the entire weekend in the critical care hospital. After her blood sugar was stabilized, she came home yesterday. They ran all the tests again before they released her and sofar, no sign of liver damage. Had I not seen her head in the purse, she probably would have died and we wouldn't even had known why.

 Three vets told me this weekend, that they were amazed that I even knew about it since they are first learning about it too. Please tell everyone you know about xylitol and dogs. It may save another life.

Following Sphinx adding a topic to the forums regarding the dog beach ban at Saint Helens and the council informing them that there wasn't one and the maps on the councils website confirming this. However the councils Dog Control Orders are directly contradicting this as they clearly state there is a ban at Saint Helens:

Dog Exclusion Order

Schedule 1 (stating the area the Exclusion Order applies to)

St Helens

The Beach from the Slipway, Northern edge of the Duver for approximately 485 metres to the Southern edge of the beach and in line with the last beach hut.

 Now as Sphinx is a regular visitor to the Island and as we all know the Islands economy is heavily dependant on tourism wightdogs felt duty bound to obtain an answer regarding this contradictory information.

However webmaster the member of our team who normally deals with this sort of thing has had restrictions imposed on him by the council for making "vexatious and persistent complaints"and is now only permitted to correspond with one nominated officer of the council who will review his complaints every seven days.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with webmaster exposing that the council themselves ruled the beach ban signs at Appley were wrong over a year ago, but that the council have continued erecting more of the exact same signs insisting that they were correct.

Until they were finally forced into an embarrassing U-turn and admit their blunder a month ago, although all the incorrect signs remain in place to date.

 So we have asked webmaster to raise the matter of the dog beach ban at Saint Helens, and the councils advise to holiday makers bringing their dogs to the Island, with the council on wightdogs.com behalf.

We will keep you informed of progress